First rollover... then GMT.... then Jan 4...... then Jan 5..... then Feb 1....... then at the end of the 1st quarter...... then the end of 2000........

WHAT NEXT?? Should we check back in 2010?

-- kathy (crazygirl@lol.com), January 07, 2000

Answers

Yes, please check back in 2010.

Bye now!

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 07, 2000.

Well, actually, yes. British Energy used 1911-2010 as a 2 digit window for some bizarre reason best known to themselves, so they'll have to do the whole thing over on a few systems in 2009. Most windowing uses 1950-2049 or 1951-2050.

Of course, none of these systems will still be around in 50 years time. That would be madness!

;)

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

No, you are wrong kathy. First it was Oct 31, 1998 then it was Jan 1, 1999, then it was Feb 1, 1999, then it was March 1, 1999, then it was April 1, 1999, then it was June 1st 1999, then it was July 1st 1999, then it was Sept 9, 1999, then it was Oct 1, 1999, then it was Nov 1st 1999, then it was Dec 1, 1999........

-- Butt Nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), January 07, 2000.

NO...... Actually, first it was in the year 2000. THEN it was POTENTIALLY the other dates listed by BN above. THEN it was 010100 (thanks Infotragic) as a brick wall, THEN it was 010100 as a crash point for embeddeds, yada yada yada.

FIRST it was "The code is going to have MAJOR problems USING 2000 dates"
FIRST it was THERE are SO MANY places that dates are stored, or accessed, or calculated with, or used otherwise (and sometimes NOT used but the RECORDS that have them are used) that there is NO WAY they will all get fixed.

This last paragraph has NOT either been TESTED or CHANGED. AS you read this, the testing is going on in THOUSANDS of company computer rooms. How many of those rooms are having the air turned blue by the IT pros finding that "EVEN THAT program looks at the effing record. WHO THE H###L would of thought THAT one read THAT record" or words to that effect in HOW MANY languages.

For a primer, look at this thread:
SORTED CHAINS AND DATE WINDOWING(what a dumb idea)
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002EUI
Best review of why I decided there were going to be problems. TOO MANY OF US are losing the FRICKIN FOREST for the TREES.
Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 07, 2000.

No Chuck, you 'downsiders' are LOST in the forest, determined to create your own little 'Blair Witch' project. It is now time for those of you with any intelligence to move on with your lives. To do otherwise is to bring you under scrutiny for ulterior motives or mental incapacitates

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 07, 2000.

God, I'd say I resembled that remark but it'd be lost on most...

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 07, 2000.

Gee, Look@....since we're here all wrapped up in this fantasy of Gloom and Doom....and you obviously don't believe what we think....what does that make you? Just another douche-bag with no life? A complete idiot? Perhaps deep down your are really a Doomer too? [Ooooh...THAT would make you a liar AND a fool.] All of the above probably applies...but you know what? We don't care. You are nothing.

-- Satanta (EventHoriz@n.com), January 07, 2000.

The best thing about being a pessimist is how often you are right.

The worst thing about being a pessimist is how often you are right.........

-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), January 07, 2000.

Kathy, You obviously don't get the point. This site has little to do with computers. This site is here to give all of these misguided souls a place to vent their paranoia. Most of these Y2K twits are conspiracy buffs. It doesn't matter, any conspiracy will do. Y2K is just the latest. They have nowhere else to go at the moment, so they are clinging to Y2K. In a month, maybe two, everyone here will be back at the Michigan militia site, or some U.F.O. or bigfoot watch forum, talking about this or that.

What is scary, is some of you will go back to blaming the Jews or the Blacks for all your problems. At least Y2K gave you a safe outlet for all of your frustrations for a while.

Now, back to your trailer parks!

-- Barry O'Clock (bogrites_rulz98@att.net), January 07, 2000.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

SO WHY WORRY?

-- billy d (billyd@aol.com), January 07, 2000.

Now THIS is INTERESTING!! Some blithering twit toasts ALL of the forum with a difused flamethrower, painting the participants here with a brush that would be charitably called BROAD, as conspiracy nimrods and signs out as:

Barry O'Clock (bogrites_rulz98@att.net)

WHOOEEE!!!! Bo GRITES (or is it GRITZ) RULES!!!!

Cognitive Dissonance Poster Boy!! HOWDEEE!!!!

(Barry Sadler, Bo Grites, any other references?? I suspect that Barry Sadler, one of the quiet certifiable heroes, who went public and then wrote about it passes, and Bo is OK as far as POWs but SHEESH has HE represented some tinfoil stuff)

Night train

Next thing we know someone will claim to be a follower of Dirty Dick Marcinko)

-- jes an ol footballer (nighttr@in.lane), January 07, 2000.

Night Train, thats DEMO Dick Marcinko.

Santana, are you also Brett? Just curious.

Chuck, LOL.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 07, 2000.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001AdE

[snip]

Government's top Y2K expert predicts failures for weeks, months

July 30, 1999
Web posted at: 12:06 PM EDT (1606 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect the Year 2000 technology problem to disappear after Jan. 1. President Clinton's top Y2K expert said failures could extend well beyond New Year's Day.
 

Although John Koskinen predicts there will be a national "sigh of relief" in the early hours of Jan. 1, he also anticipates scattered electronic failures over the first days, weeks and even months of the new year.

Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press that some failures may not become obvious until the end of January, the first time after the date rollover that consumers review their monthly bank statements, credit-card bills and other financial paperwork.

"It won't evaporate until after that," Koskinen said. "Clearly, this is more than a January 1 problem." But he also slightly hedged his predictions: "None of us are really going to know until after January 1."

Unless repaired, some computers originally programmed to recognize only the last two digits of a year will not work properly beginning in 2000, when those machines will assume it is 1900.

Some computer systems may shut down quickly with obvious failures, and others may gradually experience subtle problems or degraded performance that may take weeks to notice.

"The more difficult problem will be where the system looks like it's doing it correctly but it's doing it all wrong," Koskinen said.

Some failures won't be recognized until the work week starts Monday, Jan. 3, as employees return to their offices and turn on their computers for the first time.

Repaired computers also will need to recognize 2000 as a leap year, even though most years ending in "00" don't need to adjust for Feb. 29, he said.

A new $40 million Information Coordination Center being organized down the street from the White House will operate until March, sharing information about failures with states, federal agencies, corporations and foreign governments.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 07, 2000.

http://cnn.com/SPECIALS/weblinks/hln/y2k/part1/index.html

[snip]

Companies shouldn't expect all Y2K problems to show up on January 1.

According to Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah), "It's going to take several months for the whole thing to play out. And if we are in trouble, it will have to cascade and build over a period of several months and we won't really know until March or April of 2000."

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 07, 2000.

Linkmiester

I, like many, formed my initial concerns for Y2K issues back in 1998. It was not until July of 1999 that I started on a course that led me to believe the problems would be minimal. You are suspect in my mind when you post dated comments from Sen. Bennett and Kosingon(SP). Both of these gentlemen took a course of moderation that led to minimal impact conclusions. You sir might wish to change your handle to Spinmiester, a poor one at that.

-- Look (at@the.facts), January 07, 2000.